Bearing witness and non-violent direct action are among the founding principles of Greenpeace. For 40 years, from pole to pole, on every continent and every ocean, Greenpeace has been bringing about change through these core values.Direct action can be spectacular and have immediate results - but bearing witness, while usually less dramatic, can have even more remarkable results.

The power of bearing witness comes from the story it tells and the empowerment it brings to those who see the story, and then feel compelled to act themselves.

As Ben Metcalfe, one of the original Greenpeace crew once said; Once you have witnessed an injustice, you cannot claim ignorance as a defence for inaction. You make an ethical choice: to act - or not.

And there are times when inspiring other people to take action is by far the most powerful outcome that we can hope for.Today, as Kumi Naidoo remains in jail for bearing witness to the madness of Arctic oil drilling, eleven other Greenpeace activists appear in a Danish court. They face serious charges and possible jail sentences for a simple act of protest a year and half ago in Copenhagen.

They unfurled a banner on the red carpet at a state banquet attended by over 120 heads of state during the ill-fated Copenhagen climate talks. The message on the banner simply urged world leaders to take action to defend the climate: 'Politicians Talk - Leaders Act'.

It was a simple act but the repercussions are still being felt. They witnessed one of the great political failures in modern history and, through their eyes, we were all made aware.

Nora Christiansen, one of the eleven said: "A year and a half after world leaders failed to take climate action in Copenhagen, the wrong people are still getting locked up. Kumi Naidoo is currently under arrest in Greenland for delivering the names of 50,000 people opposed to the Arctic destruction not only from oil exploration and oil spills, but from the melting of sea ice from the burning of yet more of the fossil fuels that got us into this climate change mess in the first place".

Kumi and the other 21 people who took action here in the Arctic against Cairn Energy's oil rig in the past few weeks have held up the drilling for several days. But, perhaps more importantly, they have borne witness to the madness of oil drilling in the Arctic - something that would otherwise have gone all but unnoticed. The images of what they saw have been seen by millions.

This is an issue which that draws together many of the causes Greenpeace has fought for in the past and continue to fight today, like the threat of toxic drilling sludge being dumped into a fragile ecosystem, or the very real risk of a Gulf of Mexico type spill in the harsh Arctic environment. Or the idea that retreating ice sheets are seen not as a grave warning, but as an opportunity to drill for more of the oil that caused the climate change problem in the first place.

As Kumi said before he scaled the oil rig here in the Arctic, "this is destined to become one of the defining environmental battles of our age".

It is a battle against the might of the fossil fuel industry and against shortsighted leadership and against our own addiction to oil.

An impossible task?

No it is not. Action inspires action.

Indeed, with the support of millions, Greenpeace has been making the seemingly impossible happen for almost four decades -- an end to nuclear testing, protection of Antarctica from oil and gas exploration, a moratorium on commercial whaling, a ban on ocean dumping and a ban on trade in toxic waste, to name only a few - all seemed like impossible dreams, but as is often the case, once those changes happened they appeared inevitable.

With this year's climate summit in Durban fast approaching, world leaders must repair the mistakes of Copenhagen, and live up to their responsibilities and promises by making a strong climate agreement in Durban.

Durban is Kumi's hometown - the place he had to leave when he was forced underground as an anti-apartheid activist. He'll be there again this year telling world leaders what he witnessed here in the Arctic.

As he watches those crucial talks unfold, he'll be bearing witness again.

You are now aware. You can take action by sharing this video so that others too may become witness.

Then go to the real Arctic much farther north of Nuuk.
The warm Gulf Stream pumps plenty of hot water up to...

From Nuuk , Greenland.

Then go to the real Arctic much farther north of Nuuk.
The warm Gulf Stream pumps plenty of hot water up to Nuuk and to all the southern west coast of Greenland, which is ice-free all year round.
0 % pack ice throughout the year and very, very rarely icebergs, where there is no bigger calving glaciers in the hole area.
It is wrong to go to Nuuk to fight an arctic battle.

Greenpeace words: "Trust the science"
Greenpeace actions: Be very selective. Write the IPCC reports, but write lies about their nuclear equivalents.

[1]2009 accounts show over *6 Million Kg* of CO2 used for boats. @ 2.68 Kg of CO2 per litre of diesel = 2.2 MILLION Litres = £1.5 ($2.42) MILLION
Plus nearly *10 Million Kg* on "Business Travel". Assuming Plane travel @ 2.65 Kg per litre = *3.7 MILLION Litres* of aviation fuel @ $0.85 a litre = $3.14 MILLION
Plus other smaller amounts = $6M per YEAR *direct* to the Oil companies
[2] 2009 accounts in Euros. Total income: 199 Million. Expenditure on all Campaigns: only 54 Million. = 145 Million eaten by the Greenpeace machine.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Yoursoblind
says:

And what are you doing to make a difference, Daithesci? We live in a world imprisoned in the monetary system and so, unfortunately, Greenpeace and oth...

And what are you doing to make a difference, Daithesci? We live in a world imprisoned in the monetary system and so, unfortunately, Greenpeace and other environmental NGOs need it to do their work, as well as fossil fuels and what they bring us in the different forms. The newest Rainbow Warrior ship which is planned to be launched in October will be the most environmentally friendly ship of it's kind. Also most of Greenpeace's work starts with behind-the-scenes lobbying and diplomacy BEFORE going so far as Non-Violent-Direct-Action, which obviously uses most of their resources.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Daithesci
says:

What am I doing? Well, hopefully people reading the above may think twice about wasting money with Greenpeace and support something like seashepherd.o...

What am I doing? Well, hopefully people reading the above may think twice about wasting money with Greenpeace and support something like seashepherd.org instead. Much more bang for your buck.

GP and the other large NGO's have become essentially politicians, and are equally self-serving. Note that GP has lost its charity status in New Zealand.

Regarding the new *obscenely* expensive ship, there are dozens of sailing boats, the same size or bigger, available now for fractions of the price. If you are happy for your money to be wasted on such a vanity project, then I suggest you have too much money.

Also GP has been campaigning against climate change and oil for a decade or more, and only *now* do they think about moving away from Oil power?! And are they moving away from oil? Will this ship replace any of the oil powered ships or will it be in addition to? If the latter then it is a disgrace. Oh and while they call for other people's CO2 to reduce, theirs actually goes up from 5.8M (2008) to over 6M (2009) for their boats!

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) tabithatwitchetty
says:

@ Daithesci
Greenpeace operates in the real world and is restricted by the technology avaiable as all organisations are. The alternatives have ...

@ Daithesci
Greenpeace operates in the real world and is restricted by the technology avaiable as all organisations are. The alternatives have not be there but as they have evolved so has the approach. For example the new Rainbow Warrior is a modern and well equipped vessel which will begin to address some of your concerns. They publish their accounts and usage and are working actively to address these issues. They do not pretend they do not need to work on finding solutions.

Funding high profile quality direct action campaigns that can actually get reported on the main news networks or defending activists in court does not come cheap. Nor does co-ordinating a high profile worldwide organisation. Many members of Greenpeace volunteer their time and energy for nothing. But again they operate in the real world. Do you think that everyone should work full time for an organisation for nothing? They are not exactly living it up and enjoying outrageous lifestyles at the expense of donations. They tend to be hippies rather than banker types. Do you think that airlines should donate airtravel to remote places like the arctic? Where people can travel by train or other public transport, they do. They make an to at least consider the options, which is more than most do. But if a lawyer is defending someone in Japan, should they swim and do it for free? Do you think that the activists should not only risk their freedom but should pay for the motor lauch to allow them to climb an oil rig? It is the real world wgain. Until we get rid of the monetary system this is the reality and it is expensive.

Lies about the nuclear industry and the science? Love the statement of fact in your argument there. Gosh where to begin?! Oh yes. What a load of twaddle. The science is very clear. Nuclear power sux. Radiation poisioning, contamination, waste disposal, the stupidity of the operators and contractors, crapness of construction, energy companies in bed with politicians - all of these put me off and affect the lives of millions. There are viable alternatives but energy companies will not invest the money into developing alternatives that would slash their profits.

If you don't agree with the way Greenpeace approaches campagining, donate your money elsewhere. Personally I think they are one of the more effective organistaions with some principles and a clear vision. Simple really. It is a little bit sad that you bother commenting on such articles as this in such a negative and inflamitory way. Go support someone you agree with rather than trying to discredit an organisation which approaches protest in a positive way. It would be a better use of your time.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Daithesci
says:

@tabithatwitchetty,

The "technology available"? Available? Alternative energy for boats have been available for over 3000 years...

@tabithatwitchetty,

The "technology available"? Available? Alternative energy for boats have been available for over 3000 years! Three Thousand Years. How Greenpeace go about their business is rank hypocrisy. How can you even start to defend it? Are you saying they've only just discovered sails? They can have *no* moral authority campaigning about oil, from a 5000HP oil powered boat!

Regarding their operating expenses, where would you like the line drawn? The current 75%? 80%? 85%? 90%? 95%? 99%? At what point does the expenses of running the organisation overwhelm the purpose of the organisation? When does it stop being a "charity" and start being just a business or a political party? I say that line has been crossed long ago.

Of course airlines should not donate travel to far away places. The answer is you don't go. GP is meant to be a worldwide organisation. Let the local people go. It may be a shock to you but there *are* Japanese lawyers you know.

And, yes, the nuclear statement is a statement of *fact*. For nuclear facts read UNSCEAR - the nuclear equivalent of the IPCC, not biased reports like GP's. Read about Chernobyl there. Then compare it to the lies that GP put on these pages. GP lie. It's that simple. And by lying they condemn the planet to increased CO2 emissions. Germany closing down the Nuclear plants will result in 11GW more of coal plants and 5 GW of new gas. These are in addition to the new windmills and hydro.

And, it won't surprise you to learn that I do send my money elsewhere. I live in "the real world" I realise that for every £ sent to GP is a £ *not* sent to a worthwhile alternative cause. GP should therefore be very ashamed that their blatant lies and hypocrisy divert money from really worthwhile causes.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) tabithatwitchetty
says:

@Daithesci

Gosh. Touched a bit of a nerve there did't I! A bit of deliberate misunderstanding here, a little ranting and diversion there...

@Daithesci

Gosh. Touched a bit of a nerve there did't I! A bit of deliberate misunderstanding here, a little ranting and diversion there.

Of course I am aware of the importance of getting local people involved etc. But rather than condem the organisation on this issue I would hope to ensure that by being involved policies such as this can be tightened up and amended. I cannot really argue this point any further than that, not knowing this particular policy or the stats in relation to it.

Are you seriously suggesting an assault on an oil rig in the Arctic using a sail boat? Why not a coracle? Oh dear I am now reduced to sarcasm. *Breathes*...My brother is a deep sea fisherman. One of the most dangerous professions around. Direct action on the water is seriously dangerous. I do think a state of the art vesssel is about due actually.

Organisations evolve. GP are evolving in a direction I quite like. I have supported their aims since their inception and have found the people who work for them to be committed and genuine. I like the way they are currently highlighting issues in interesting and imaginative ways and getting them out to a much wider audience. i think they are doing this in effective manner.

I do not need educating about nuclear power thank you. 30 years of personal research, from a wide variety of sources, has pretty much cemented my opinions in this area. I would not presume to attempt to challenge your views on the subject seeing as I have to do some work at some point. Interesting procrastination has its limits donchaknow. Peace dude.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) harry.p
says:

Daithesci - I have to say I'm getting pretty sick of your bitter negativity - maybe you should find somewhere else to play?

You insist o...

Daithesci - I have to say I'm getting pretty sick of your bitter negativity - maybe you should find somewhere else to play?

You insist on missing the point even though you're obviously not stupid, you keep accusing Greenpeace of all manner of things but you fail to give concrete examples of anything, the links you 'reference' your claims with do not back up your arguments and I'm pretty sure nobody here is all that interested.

Daithesci words: "Spend 6 Million USD per annum on Oil"
Greenpeace actions: Just a subtle hint... did you also check on how much Greenpeace spends on CO² offsetting every year? [1]

Daithesci words: "Spend three quarters of all funds on expenses and administration"
Greenpeace actions: You calculated wrong. Greenpeace spends 79.7% of Net Income (or 54.5% of Total Income) for campaigns, or only 20.3% (respectively 45.5%) for other expenditures and administration. [2]

Daithesci words: "Be very selective"

About being very selective, I would look at your own arguments. Action always causes emissions, so it is clear that Greenpeace causes emissions, too. But you have to go a long way until to find another organisation or company that provides its actions that eco-efficiently as Greenpeace. So what is important is not the nominal number of emissions caused (because then we all would have to stop working, moving around and breathing at all!), but the comparison to others.

The same with your second argument about campaign expenditures. It is the nature of every bigger organisation that it needs some administration and organisational support, which costs money. This includes costs for Executive Director's Office and IT, Legal, Development, Finance, Facilities/Infrastructure, Human Resources and Governance. And even campaigns contain a lot of "administrative" expenditures, because you will have to do scientific research first, try to influence politics and businesses, produce media information and PR material, and other things like maintain e.g. marine infrastructure, before - if all else fails - finally starting some "action" that the public world will notice. Taking all this into account and being aware of that simple nominal numbers do not make a real statement, I think Greenpeace acts quite efficiently, also if comparing to other non-profit organisations.

So if taking some simple nominal figures out of a whole, you can always make an organisation or business appear bad. This is what is being SELECTIVE in your arguments. But looking at the whole picture, at the details and comparing with others you can see the real picture and get an objective view of reality.

By the way: Your statement sounds like from somebody that is involved with some organisation or business that Greenpeace is or was acting against, supplemented with some bare numbers and facts that give it the touch of being correct or "scientific". It would be interesting to know who you work for or who you are lobbying for.

As for me, I'm not working for Greenpeace nor any organisation linked to them, I'm just a normal critical consumer and also a Greenpeace supporter since many years. This does not mean that I'm an avid fan of or that I agree with everything they do, but I think they do a tremendous work that really is needed today, because nobody else does it. Without Greenpeace (and others!) this planet would not be what it is. So they're generally doing a really good job and definitely are worth being supported.

-----
[1] Or did you omit this fact because it would invalidate your argument?